pith. machine review for the scientific record.
sign in

arxiv: 2604.15418 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CY

Towards A Framework for Levels of Anthropomorphic Deception in Robots and AI

Franziska Babel , Shane Saunderson , Shalaleh Rismani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 09:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CY
keywords anthropomorphic deceptionhuman-robot interactionlevels of deceptionagencyselfhoodhumanlikenessethical designHCI
0
0 comments X

The pith

A four-level framework sorts anthropomorphic deception in robots and AI by humanlikeness, agency, and selfhood to judge functional necessity, social fit, and ethical permissibility.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper drafts a framework that organizes the use of anthropomorphic features in autonomous systems into four levels, where such features can mislead users about humanlike qualities. The levels are separated by three factors: how closely the system resembles a human, how much agency it appears to have, and whether it implies selfhood. This structure is meant to prompt researchers and designers to reflect on when deception of this kind is required for the system to work, acceptable in social contexts, or defensible on ethical grounds. Examples at each level and an application to earlier studies on persuasive robots show how the distinctions might guide practical decisions rather than treating humanlike design as automatic or purely commercial.

Core claim

Anthropomorphic deception is defined as design that misleads users toward humanlike affordances in autonomous systems. The framework proposes four levels distinguished by three factors—humanlikeness, agency, and selfhood—each level illustrated with use cases that differ in whether the deception meets functional needs, social norms, or ethical standards. The same lens is applied to prior work on persuasive robots to demonstrate its utility in distinguishing balanced from exploitive choices.

What carries the argument

Four levels of anthropomorphic deception separated by the factors of humanlikeness, agency, and selfhood, used to evaluate functional, social, and ethical permissibility in specific designs.

If this is right

  • Designers gain a structured way to check whether humanlike cues are required for a given robot or AI to perform its intended task.
  • Teams can evaluate whether a proposed level of anthropomorphism aligns with social expectations in the intended context of use.
  • Review processes can reference the levels to decide if a design crosses into ethically questionable territory.
  • Existing systems such as persuasive robots can be re-examined to identify which level of deception they currently employ.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could be tested by having multiple design teams classify the same set of commercial chatbots or service robots and comparing their level assignments.
  • If the three factors prove stable, the approach might supply a shared vocabulary for transparency requirements in AI policy documents.
  • Extending the levels to non-embodied systems such as voice assistants would reveal whether the same distinctions hold without physical form.

Load-bearing premise

The three factors of humanlikeness, agency, and selfhood form a sufficient and non-overlapping basis that reliably maps to distinct judgments about functional necessity, social appropriateness, and ethical permissibility.

What would settle it

A set of robot or AI designs where independent raters cannot consistently assign the designs to the four levels using only humanlikeness, agency, and selfhood, or where the assigned level fails to predict actual permissibility concerns raised by users or ethicists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15418 by Franziska Babel, Shalaleh Rismani, Shane Saunderson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Depiction of the proposed framework for anthropomorphic deception of autonomous systems. Short descriptions of each level and symbolic representation of embodied and non-embodied agents per level are presented. Right: Concept figure explaining that the framework is about autonomous systems claiming aspects of humanness thereby exploiting our tendency to attribute human traits to objects that cannot p… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents a preliminary draft of a framework around the use of anthropomorphic deception, defined here as misleading users towards humanlike affordances in the design of autonomous systems. The goal is to promote reflection among HCI and HRI researchers, as well as industry practitioners, to think about levels of anthropomorphic design that are: a) functionally necessary, b) socially appropriate, and c) ethically permissible for their use case. By reviewing the relevant literature on deception in HCI and HRI, we propose a framework with four levels of anthropomorphic deception. These levels are defined and distinguished by three factors: humanlikeness, agency, and selfhood. Example use cases at each level illustrate considerations around their functional, social, and ethical permissibility. We then present how this framework is applicable to previous work on persuasive robots We hope to promote a balanced view on anthropomorphic deception by design that should be neither na\"ive (e.g., as a default) nor exploitive (e.g., for economic benefit).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a preliminary conceptual framework for anthropomorphic deception in robots and AI, defined as misleading users toward humanlike affordances. It reviews literature on deception in HCI and HRI, introduces four levels distinguished by the factors of humanlikeness, agency, and selfhood, supplies illustrative use cases to discuss functional necessity, social appropriateness, and ethical permissibility, and applies the framework to prior work on persuasive robots, with the aim of encouraging balanced reflection among researchers and practitioners.

Significance. If the distinctions prove workable in practice, the framework could serve as a useful reflective tool for HCI and HRI design decisions, helping to avoid default or exploitative anthropomorphism. The literature review and explicit mapping to persuasive-robot examples provide a concrete foundation for this contribution and credit the authors for grounding a definitional proposal in existing scholarship rather than advancing untested empirical claims.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Framework definition] The three distinguishing factors (humanlikeness, agency, selfhood) are introduced without a summary table or explicit decision tree showing how they map onto the four levels; adding such a table in the framework section would improve readability and reduce potential overlap concerns.
  2. [Application to persuasive robots] The application to persuasive robots is mentioned but lacks a dedicated subsection with side-by-side comparison of prior systems against the four levels; expanding this with one or two concrete citations would strengthen the claim of applicability.
  3. [Introduction] A few sentences in the introduction repeat the goal of promoting reflection on functional, social, and ethical permissibility; tightening this repetition would improve conciseness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of the manuscript, recognition of its grounding in existing scholarship, and recommendation for minor revision. We appreciate the acknowledgment that the framework could serve as a useful reflective tool for HCI and HRI design decisions if the distinctions prove workable in practice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the proposed framework

full rationale

The paper is a preliminary conceptual proposal that constructs a four-level framework for anthropomorphic deception from a review of existing HCI and HRI literature on deception. The levels are distinguished by the three proposed factors of humanlikeness, agency, and selfhood, introduced as definitional criteria without any reduction to fitted parameters, self-referential loops, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations, empirical predictions, or derivations are present that could equate outputs to inputs by construction. The central claim is an independent organizational tool for prompting functional, social, and ethical reflection rather than a result derived from prior self-work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The contribution is definitional and classificatory; it rests on domain assumptions about what counts as deception and how the three factors separate levels, with no free parameters or new physical entities introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Anthropomorphic deception is defined as misleading users towards humanlike affordances in the design of autonomous systems.
    This definition is the starting point for constructing the levels and is invoked throughout the proposal.
invented entities (1)
  • Four levels of anthropomorphic deception no independent evidence
    purpose: To categorize design choices and prompt reflection on functional, social, and ethical permissibility.
    The levels are newly proposed constructs without independent empirical grounding in the provided abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5480 in / 1292 out tokens · 23878 ms · 2026-05-10T09:53:36.329049+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. R. Duffy, Anthropomorphism and the social robot, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42 (2003) 177–190. doi:10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3, iSBN: 0921-8890

    work page doi:10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00374-3 2003

  2. [2]

    , title =

    N. Epley, A. Waytz, J. T. Cacioppo, On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomor- phism, Psychological Review 114 (2007) 864–886. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 2007

  3. [4]

    Waytz, K

    A. Waytz, K. Gray, N. Epley, D. M. Wegner, Causes and consequences of mind perception, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (2010) 383–388. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006, publisher: Elsevier Ltd

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 2010

  4. [5]

    Sharkey, N

    A. Sharkey, N. Sharkey, We need to talk about deception in social robotics!, Ethics and Information Technology 23 (2021) 309–316. doi:10.1007/s10676-020-09573-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-020-09573-9 2021

  5. [6]

    Reeves, C

    B. Reeves, C. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places, Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  6. [7]

    Turkle, Authenticity in the age of digital companions, Interaction Studies (2007) 501–517

    S. Turkle, Authenticity in the age of digital companions, Interaction Studies (2007) 501–517. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511978036.006, iSBN: 9780511978036

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511978036.006 2007

  7. [8]

    Gould, M

    H. Gould, M. Arnold, T. Kohn, B. Nansen, M. Gibbs, Robot death care: A study of funerary practice, International Journal of Cultural Studies 24 (2021) 603–621. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/10.1177/1367877920939093. doi:10.1177/1367877920939093

    work page doi:10.1177/1367877920939093 2021

  8. [9]

    P. B. Brandtzaeg, M. Skjuve, A. Følstad, My AI Friend: How Users of a Social Chatbot Understand Their Human-AI Friendship, Human Communication Research 48 (2022) 404–429. doi: 10.1093/ hcr/hqac008

    2022

  9. [10]

    Musiał, Can we design artificial persons without being manipulative?, AI & So- ciety 39 (2024) 1251–1260

    M. Musiał, Can we design artificial persons without being manipulative?, AI & So- ciety 39 (2024) 1251–1260. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01575-z. doi: 10.1007/ s00146-022-01575-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01575-z 2024

  10. [11]

    De Freitas, Z

    J. De Freitas, Z. Oguz-Uguralp, A. Kaan-Uguralp, Emotional manipulation by ai companions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19258 (2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.19258.arXiv:2508.19258

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.19258.arxiv:2508.19258 2025

  11. [12]

    A. Xu, H. Al-mashahedi, Deceptive by Design : AI-enhanced Dark Patterns in E-Commerce UX, Ph.D. thesis, 2025

    2025

  12. [13]

    C. M. Gray, Y. Kou, B. Battles, J. Hoggatt, A. L. Toombs, The dark (patterns) side of ux design, in: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2018, pp. 1–14

    2018

  13. [14]

    G. Y. Y. Wu, Silicon love: Deception, vulnerability, and artificial companions, in: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2025, pp. 1–7. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3706599.3720037. doi:10.1145/3706599.3720037

    work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3720037 2025

  14. [15]

    Holbrook, D

    C. Holbrook, D. Holman, J. Clingo, A. R. Wagner, Overtrust in ai recommendations about whether or not to kill: Evidence from two human-robot interaction studies, Scientific reports 14 (2024) 19751

    2024

  15. [16]

    T. Xie, I. Pentina, Attachment Theory as a Framework to Understand Relationships with Social Chatbots: A Case Study of Replika, Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Confer- ence on System Sciences 2022-Janua (2022) 2046–2055. doi:10.24251/hicss.2022.258, iSBN: 9780998133157

    work page doi:10.24251/hicss.2022.258 2022

  16. [17]

    Characterizing manipulation from ai systems

    M. Carroll, A. Chan, H. Ashton, D. Krueger, Characterizing Manipulation from AI Systems, 2023. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09387. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.09387, arXiv:2303.09387 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.09387 2023

  17. [18]

    E. Union, Regulation (eu) 2024/1689 of the european parliament and of the council of 13 june 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act),Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689, 12 July 2024, pp. 1–152, 2024. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ eli/reg/2024/1689/oj, cited as EU Artificial Intelligence Act

    2024

  18. [19]

    Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in November 2021

    UNESCO, Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence, https://www.unesco.org/en/ articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence, 2021. Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in November 2021

    2021

  19. [20]

    Adopted in May 2019 to promote AI that is innovative and trustworthy and that respects human rights and democratic values

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Oecd principles on artificial intelli- gence, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/ai-principles.html, 2019. Adopted in May 2019 to promote AI that is innovative and trustworthy and that respects human rights and democratic values

    2019

  20. [21]

    R. C. Arkin, Ethics of robotic deception, 2018. URL: https://technologyandsociety.org/ ethics-of-robotic-deception/, editorial & Opinion on the ethical implications of deception in robotics

    2018

  21. [22]

    Thellman, M

    S. Thellman, M. De Graaf, T. Ziemke, Mental state attribution to robots: A systematic review of conceptions, methods, and findings, ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 11 (2022) 1–51

    2022

  22. [23]

    M. F. Damholdt, O. S. Quick, J. Seibt, C. Vestergaard, M. Hansen, A scoping review of hri research on ‘anthropomorphism’: Contributions to the method debate in hri, International Journal of Social Robotics 15 (2023) 1203–1226. doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01014-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01014-z 2023

  23. [24]

    Kühne, J

    R. Kühne, J. Peter, Anthropomorphism in human–robot interactions: a multidimensional concep- tualization, Communication Theory 33 (2023) 42–52

    2023

  24. [25]

    Epley, A mind like mine: The exceptionally ordinary underpinnings of anthropomorphism, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 3 (2018) 591–598

    N. Epley, A mind like mine: The exceptionally ordinary underpinnings of anthropomorphism, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 3 (2018) 591–598. URL: https://doi.org/10.1086/ 699516. doi:10.1086/699516

    work page doi:10.1086/699516 2018

  25. [26]

    Fink, Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interac- tion, in: International conference on social robotics, Springer, 2012, pp

    J. Fink, Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interac- tion, in: International conference on social robotics, Springer, 2012, pp. 199–208

    2012

  26. [27]

    & Malle, B

    E. Phillips, X. Zhao, D. Ullman, B. F. Malle, What is Human-like?: Decomposing Robots’ Human- like Appearance Using the Anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) Database, in: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, Chicago IL USA, 2018, pp. 105–113. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3171221.3171268. doi:10.1145/317...

    work page doi:10.1145/3171221.3171268 2018

  27. [28]

    J. Shim, R. C. Arkin, A Taxonomy of Robot Deception and Its Benefits in HRI, in: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, IEEE, Manchester, 2013, pp. 2328–

    2013

  28. [29]

    doi:10.1109/SMC.2013.398

    URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6722151/. doi:10.1109/SMC.2013.398

    work page doi:10.1109/smc.2013.398 2013

  29. [30]

    Złotowski, D

    J. Złotowski, D. Proudfoot, K. Yogeeswaran, C. Bartneck, Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction, 2015. doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6 2015

  30. [31]

    D. C. Dennett, The Intentional Stance, MIT Press, 1989

    1989

  31. [32]

    Broadbent, Interactions With Robots: The Truths We Reveal About Ourselves, An- nual Review of Psychology 68 (2017) 627–652

    E. Broadbent, Interactions With Robots: The Truths We Reveal About Ourselves, An- nual Review of Psychology 68 (2017) 627–652. URL: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10. 1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958 , iSBN: 00664308 (ISSN)

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958 2017

  32. [33]

    R. H. Wortham, A. Theodorou, Robot transparency, trust and utility, Connection Science 29 (2017) 242–248. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540091.2017.1313816. doi: 10.1080/09540091. 2017.1313816

    work page doi:10.1080/09540091.2017.1313816 2017

  33. [34]

    P. H. Kahn, A. L. Reichert, H. E. Gary, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, S. Shen, J. H. Ruckert, B. Gill, The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM/IEEE, 2011, pp. 159–160. doi:10.1145/1957656. 1957710

    work page doi:10.1145/1957656 2011

  34. [35]

    Darling, P

    K. Darling, P. Nandy, C. Breazeal, Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, 2015, pp. 770–775. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333675

    work page doi:10.1109/roman.2015.7333675 2015

  35. [36]

    Darling, ’Who’s Johnny?’ Anthropomorphic Framing in Human-Robot Interaction, Integration, and Policy, 2015

    K. Darling, ’Who’s Johnny?’ Anthropomorphic Framing in Human-Robot Interaction, Integration, and Policy, 2015. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2588669. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2588669

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.2588669 2015

  36. [37]

    D. J. Gunkel, Person, Thing, Robot: A Moral and Legal Ontology for the 21st Century and Beyond, MIT Press, 2023. Google-Books-ID: SPCfEAAAQBAJ

    2023

  37. [38]

    Zuckerman, B

    M. Zuckerman, B. M. DePaulo, R. Rosenthal, Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Decep- tion, in: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, volume 14, Elsevier, 1981, pp. 1–59. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S006526010860369X. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08) 60369-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08 1981

  38. [39]

    Esposito, A

    R. Esposito, A. Rossi, S. Rossi, Deception in HRI and Its Implications: A Systematic Review, ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 14 (2025). doi:10.1145/3721297

    work page doi:10.1145/3721297 2025

  39. [40]

    Danaher, Robot Betrayal: a guide to the ethics of robotic deception, Ethics and Information Technology 22 (2020) 117–128

    J. Danaher, Robot Betrayal: a guide to the ethics of robotic deception, Ethics and Information Technology 22 (2020) 117–128. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09520-3. doi: 10.1007/ s10676-019-09520-3, publisher: Springer Netherlands ISBN: 1067601909520

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-019-09520-3 2020

  40. [41]

    Model cards for model reporting

    B. Leong, E. Selinger, Robot eyes wide shut: Understanding dishonest anthropomorphism, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2019, pp. 299–308. doi:10.1145/3287560.3287591

    work page doi:10.1145/3287560.3287591 2019

  41. [42]

    Mildner, O

    T. Mildner, O. Cooney, A.-M. Meck, M. Bartl, G.-L. Savino, P. R. Doyle, D. Garaialde, L. Clark, J. Sloan, N. Wenig, R. Malaka, J. Niess, Listening to the voices: Describing ethical caveats of conversational user interfaces according to experts and frequent users, in: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for ...

  42. [43]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24)

    URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642542. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642542

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642542

  43. [44]

    Danry, P

    V. Danry, P. Pataranutaporn, M. Groh, Z. Epstein, Deceptive explanations by large language models lead people to change their beliefs about misinformation more often than honest explanations, in: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2025, pp. 1–31

    2025

  44. [45]

    Benharrak, T

    K. Benharrak, T. Zindulka, D. Buschek, Deceptive patterns of intelligent and interactive writing assistants, in: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024, pp. 62–64

    2024

  45. [46]

    Ibrahim, L

    L. Ibrahim, L. Rocher, A. Valdivia, Characterizing and modeling harms from interactions with design patterns in AI interfaces, arXiv [cs.HC] (2024)

    2024

  46. [47]

    Placani, Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy, AI Ethics 4 (2024) 691–698

    A. Placani, Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy, AI Ethics 4 (2024) 691–698

    2024

  47. [48]

    Peter, K

    S. Peter, K. Riemer, J. D. West, The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 122 (2025) e2415898122

    2025

  48. [49]

    Akbulut, L

    C. Akbulut, L. Weidinger, A. Manzini, I. Gabriel, V. Rieser, All too human? mapping and mitigating the risk from anthropomorphic AI, AAAI/ACM conference Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society (2024) 13–26

    2024

  49. [50]

    Marchegiani, Anthropomorphism, false beliefs, and conversational AIs : How chatbots under- mine users’ autonomy, J

    B. Marchegiani, Anthropomorphism, false beliefs, and conversational AIs : How chatbots under- mine users’ autonomy, J. Appl. Philos. 42 (2025) 1399–1419

    2025

  50. [51]

    Y. Xiao, L. H. X. Ng, J. Liu, M. T. Diab, Humanizing machines: Rethinking LLM anthropomorphism through a multi-level framework of design, in: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2025, pp. 3331–3350

    2025

  51. [52]

    DeVrio, M

    A. DeVrio, M. Cheng, L. Egede, A. Olteanu, S. L. Blodgett, A taxonomy of linguistic expressions that contribute to anthropomorphism of language technologies, arXiv [cs.HC] (2025)

    2025

  52. [53]

    Y. Xie, K. Zhu, P. Zhou, C. Liang, How does anthropomorphism improve human-AI interaction satisfaction: a dual-path model, Comput. Human Behav. 148 (2023) 107878

    2023

  53. [54]

    Ibrahim, C

    L. Ibrahim, C. Akbulut, R. Elasmar, C. Rastogi, M. Kahng, M. R. Morris, K. R. McKee, V. Rieser, M. Shanahan, L. Weidinger, Multi-turn evaluation of anthropomorphic behaviours in large language models, arXiv [cs.CL] (2025)

    2025

  54. [55]

    Umbrello, S

    S. Umbrello, S. Natale, Reframing Deception for Human-Centered AI, International Journal of Social Robotics 16 (2024) 2223–2241. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01184-4. doi: 10. 1007/s12369-024-01184-4, publisher: Springer Netherlands

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-024-01184-4 2024

  55. [56]

    Tarsney, Deception and manipulation in generative AI, Philos

    C. Tarsney, Deception and manipulation in generative AI, Philos. Stud. 182 (2025) 1865–1887

    2025

  56. [57]

    Maeda, A

    T. Maeda, A. Quan-Haase, When human-AI interactions become parasocial: Agency and anthro- pomorphism in affective design, in: The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024

    2024

  57. [58]

    Maeda, L

    T. Maeda, L. Stark, Anthropomorphism as social affordance: Charting the co-animation of chatbots into social “agents”, Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 8 (2025) 1661–1673

    2025

  58. [59]

    M. Díaz, R. Shelby, E. Corbett, A. Smart, How tech workers contend with hazards of humanlikeness in generative AI, arXiv [cs.HC] (2025)

    2025

  59. [60]

    Heider, M

    F. Heider, M. Simmel, An experimental study of apparent behavior, The American Journal of Psychology 57 (1944) 243–259. doi:10.2307/1416950

    work page doi:10.2307/1416950 1944

  60. [61]

    C. Nass, B. Fogg, Y. Moon, Can computers be teammates?, International Journal of Human- Computer Studies 45 (1996) 669–678. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1071581996900737. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073

    work page doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073 1996

  61. [62]

    Halbryt, Hoax in the Machine: an Ethical Analysis of Perceived Humanness in Social Robots (2024) 1–50

    A. Halbryt, Hoax in the Machine: an Ethical Analysis of Perceived Humanness in Social Robots (2024) 1–50. URL: http://essay.utwente.nl/98122/

    2024

  62. [63]

    deception

    M. Coeckelbergh, How to describe and evaluate “deception” phenomena: recasting the metaphysics, ethics, and politics of ICTs in terms of magic and performance and taking a relational and narrative turn, Ethics and Information Technology 20 (2018) 71–85. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ s10676-017-9441-5. doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9441-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9441-5 2018

  63. [64]

    Saunderson, G

    S. Saunderson, G. Nejat, It Would Make Me Happy If You Used My Guess: Comparing Robot Persuasive Strategies In Social Human-Robot Interaction, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4 (2019) 1707–1714. doi:10.1109/LRA.2019.2897143, publisher: IEEE

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2019.2897143 2019

  64. [65]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI7, 591448 (Jan 2021)

    F. Babel, J. M. Kraus, M. Baumann, Development and Testing of Psychological Conflict Resolution Strategies for Assertive Robots to Resolve Human–Robot Goal Conflict, Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7 (2021). doi:10.3389/frobt.2020.591448

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2020.591448 2021

  65. [66]

    Saunderson, G

    S. Saunderson, G. Nejat, Persuasive robots should avoid authority: The effects of formal and real authority on persuasion in human-robot interaction, Science Robotics 6 (2021) eabd5186

    2021